Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Budget debate

Budget debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

A new format for academic debating competitions. Idea generated by Siddharth Mehta and written up here by user:Siddharth171287. (Edits on the same subject to be undone in debate and Template:University debating.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am revising my delete proposal to: Redirect to Budget Day. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It may be a new format for school debating societies, but it's a centuries old idea in parliamentary democracy. See Budget Day for what real Budget debates are all about. Ironically, the first source cited in this article, whilst not supporting this content in any way, would support the beginnings of an "In India" section in Budget Day, since it provides several verifiable facts about Budget Days in India. Uncle G (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Promotion by single purpose account of a recent idea that doesn't meet notability yet, and that "Institutes of National Importance" reference link seems fishy too although it doesn't even help to establish this article's notability anyway. OlEnglish (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point One -- Abt Budget Day - if you see a googlepages alfaaz link given , you will see that the Budet debate is like making a business plan / or more like a AOE game where teams are given funds to manage, After reading the scenario given in rule booklet you will realise that its way above the standard of School debate.

Secondly "Institute of National Importance" clause is mentioned in constitution of India. These few institutes are fully overnment funded and any practice adopted by these institutes is regarded as guidelines to rest all colleges of India. To check credibility of IIT's and status in India , I would suggest you all to just read about it once on wikipedia itself. Lastly is there a compulsion that things now practised in West wont get mention in Wikipedia , if Australian Debate can mention, debatin done in Australia, y is it wrong for Budget Debate I Hope you will change your mindset now and vote in favour —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharth171287 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Siddharth, for the benefit of us ignorant Europeans perhaps you could explain what an AOE game is. You say "googlepages alfaaz link given" but you have not given us the link! It is this PDF. It tells us that a budget debate is "being held for the first time anywhere as a full fledged event, on 21st – 22nd March 2009". That pretty well condemns your article on the grounds of original research /
  CRYSTAL. I fear the idea will not catch on, at least using your rules: they make Mornington Crescent seem simple! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete I wasn't sure on reading the article whether this was what went on in the Parliament or a debating society. I assume from comments above it's debating society. It's not one we did at school (we had parliamentary elections and criminal trials, etc), but I would imagine it's been done already. Not a lot of indication of notability. Peridon (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like this should be deleted or merged with a parent topic. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macula (planetary geology)

Macula (planetary geology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This one-line dictionary definition survived a previous prod (June 07) on the grounds that it had the potential for expansion, however I really don't see that being the case, and in over a year there hasn't been any such expansion. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:52, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• Soft redirect to wiktionary. I'll go ahead and do that now.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - sorry; but I think that bold redirecting should await the result of the AfD.
  talk) 02:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete This is just a dictionary definition (and one already in Wiktionary, at that) already provided in the few WP pages that link to it. It doesn't appear that there's anything additional to be said here, although I'm willing to be proved wrong, if anyone has further info they can add. Anaxial (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into
  talk) 02:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and redirect - I do think that this has potential for expansion as our knowledge of planetary geology improves, so keeping the page as a redirect would serve a purpose. That said, as it stands the suggested merge seems the best option.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 08:07, 9 February 2009
• Merge as above. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- A five minute search turned up the following sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], which are enough to write a small but respectable stub, and I'm sure there's more sources to be found. I will expand the article later, when I have time. Reyk _YO! 20:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources: [6], [7] Reyk _YO! 21:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as TerriersFan.
  talk) 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 16:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Park Seong-won

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Park Seong-won (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, little references, and there is a serious bit of

• Delete, please. I agree with CyberGhostface about notability. To be a member of committeeis good, but many professor and priest/reverend beloning the committee. The committee is maybe notable, but not to member of the committee. If somebody famous, maybe they should wait until another editor decide to write the article. Nxo (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Keep. I change after I look at the google's search results given by Phil Bridger. We can see academic actvities and publication, religious activity of the Park Seong-won, in English and Korean. I change to keep and also perhaps the editor will dispense with the superfluous detail on the family of the Park Seong-won. Nxo (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This isn't just any old committee that the subject's a member of, it's the Central Committee of the
  Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, that is a good point about the notability of the committee, Phil Bridger. However, are members of the committee notable simply through their membership? Also, I add the perspective by letting you know that their isno page for this *Park Seong-won in korean wikipedia [8] . Nxo (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No, members are not notable simply by virtue of their membership, which is why I haven't recommended keeping without looking through the potential sources that I found. However membership of the central committee of an organisation that represents over 500 million people is a good indication that substantial coverage in reliable sources will probably exist, so it's worth having a careful look for them before deciding what to do with this article. Have you tried looking for Korean sources? I'm afraid my ability to search is limited to the Latin alphabet (or Cyrillic at a stretch).
  Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment. Yes, in the search link you provided I can see a few results in Korean. I will look them further, and add as the source if relevant.Nxo (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A websearch on the Korean for Park Seong-won (박성원) did not yielding good result. But I addition of "WCC" and I received many results on Naver [9]. In Korean result, their is the report of the mainstream Korean newspaper such as Kukmin Ilbo, etc. So maybe they could class the "reliable sources". And Phil Bridger resarch show that Park Seong-won is author of book chapter on church history in volume published by mainstream publsiher [10].Nxo (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under
  WP:BIO. I understand the points made above, but the bottom line is that independent news coverage in English of him is practically nonexistent, and this is the English Wikipedia.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. The "English" in "English Wikipedia" simply refers to the language in which it is written. It isn't a restriction on what sources can be used.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the importance of the body is sufficiently great that each individual person is notable. Just like any top level international body for a major profession. He's there as the representative of World Alliance of Reformed Churches, also a major international body. The professorship is probably notable also, though I cannot judge adequately for lack of sources I can read. DGG (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Leydon

Joe Leydon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

...a local film critic not notable to the rest of the world. "Claim" to fame is occasionally interviewing notables. A Leydon article is along the same line as articles for local news anchors and radio hosts (which are deleted on a regular basis) – 95% of them are un-established relative to the rest of the world, thus not notable. It should also be noted that primary contributor to the article (User:JoeLeydon) is presumably the subject himself. Bat ears (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the
  talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Yes, he was a local critic when he worked for the Houston Post, but now he works for Variety which is anything but local. Being a regular critic and correspondent for such a major magazine means he's notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems reasonably notable.
  talk) 10:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep although it needs reliable sources to be put in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Buecher

Tiffany Buecher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability, no coverage in

• Delete Insufficient notability to mett guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of passing
  WP:N. Flarkins (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fat Tail: The Power of Political Knowledge for Strategic Investing

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

Advert for not yet published book. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:Notability (books), which states unpublished book articles are strongly discourged unless they meet other notability guidelines, which this one doesn't. It also lacks multiple, independent references. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Notability (books), Cyclonenim couldn't have said it better.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Hogvillian (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not sure if these sources are quite enough yet, but they do indicate that the noise around this book is strong enough for it to get enough reviews for notability once it is published, so I'd like to put it on the record here that, if this AfD ends in deletion, a
  Phil Bridger (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After discounting

Steve Gatena

Steve Gatena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

After two low-vote "no consensus" AfDs, this is the third nomination for a non-notable

In the time between the last AfD and this one, another article by the same group of editors, James Edward Miller (a scholarship athlete), was successfully deleted without nearly as much vociferous debate as the previous AfDs.

While I am firmly on the side that

None of the sources cited in the article are significant: the have either minor mentions in local papers (which local high school kids got scholarships, who got accepted to a military academy, etc) or are written in student newspapers and are not "independent of the subject" as defined in

Putting this article into the greater context: If Wikipedia were to permit all Division I-FBS (top level) scholarship athletes, we'd have approximately [120 (teams) x 85 (NCAA-allowed scholarship players)] 10,200 new articles (at least). If you include walk-ons, that 10,200 number increases with very little room for any opinion on notability. A line must be drawn, and I think this line can be agreed upon. This article is basically a well-crafted vanity page; this article appears to be the work of either the subject, friend/relative, or PR firm. If it were allowed, any player who successfully walks onto any team would have a free ticket into Wikipedia. I could see an overrun of hopeful punters and kickers with the ability to create a "pretty" but ultimately non-notable page. College football is not a black/white "include all/delete all" situation, and this player falls onto the non-notable side.

Because it came up earlier, I should note that the subject's level of education also isn't significant: the same USC roster includes a former high school Gatorade National Player of the Year and strong NFL prospect Jeff Byers, who is an MBA student. His article lists high school awards, but they are not significant like a national Player of the Year, or even a prestigious regional award.

Again: he has never started for USC or seen any significant playing time, which is a major blow to any notability questions. Because I support the inclusion of notable college football athletes in

I should note that this article has a handful of strong defenders who have solely worked on this article, likely family and friends.

If the subject actually builds a successful, notable career at USC --starting in games, gaining significant playing time (and hopefully getting NFL, CFL or even Arena attention), then we have an existing article that can be quickly restored. The precedent has certainly been set: Clay Matthews III rose from a little-known walk-on to being a scholarship starting LB/DE this season and a solid NFL Draft prospect. Until Gatena reaches that point, Delete. Bobak (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Bobak (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Bobak (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Bobak (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Likely passes
  WP:Athlete... If he has indeed played for USC, which is a Division I team "the highest amateur level" for American football. Some have argued college players don't meet WP:ATH if there is a professional level for the same sport. That is nonsense, and reading into WP:ATH what isn't there. WP:Athlete says: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." As for the number of players who meet this criterion: Who cares? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there almost 3 million articles right now. Even if there were 100,000 college sports player articles, that would only be about three percent of all current articles. This nomination is about this player only, not any number of other players. It isn't about successfully walking on or not, either. The line of inclusion is game action. Has he, or has he not, seen action in an NCAA Division I game? Strikehold (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Under your logic, should all of these "notable" Terrapins be included? If so, why haven't they been added yet? Do you want to do the honors if this passes? --Bobak (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but I do not see the point you're trying to make. I assume it is in good faith, but what bearing do my contributions have on the discussion at hand? And more importantly: following your logic, if an individual's lack of an article implied a lack of notability, there would be no need for any further articles. Strikehold (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm saying that if a walk-on, a player who is brought onto a team to help fill the program and provide depth, warrants an article by virtue of being on a D-IA team, then all the players from every D-IA school --from ACC's Terps to the Sun Belt's Western Kentucky Hilltoppers-- would warrant their own articles for making the team. Are you willing to make the same vote for all of those inevitable AfDs? --Bobak (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is saying that this player was brought onto the team to help fill the program and provide depth? It seems to me that one year ago USC's offensive line was the only group in question for the 2008 season and to my knowledge USC hasn't had a problem with filling their program or providing depth... But what do these situations have to do with this Wikipedia article? Both are irrelevant in determining deletion.99Legend (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You misinterpret what I said slightly; I never said by simply "being on a D-IA team". If a player (walk-on or otherwise) sees action in a season game then they are notable under WP:ATH as it is currently written. Strikehold (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strikehold: WP:ATHLETE is part of
  WP:BIO. WP:ATHLETE consists of additional criteria to the basic criteria of WP:BIO, which states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]". This article does not meet this basic criteria - see my rationale as well as Mosmof's below. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• As I read it, the additional criteria of WP:BIO (of which WP:ATH is one) and its basic criteria (cited above) can be mutually exclusive. Strikehold (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That is true, but it all comes down to the sources per the
  WP:SOURCES. Again, see the points covered by Mosmof and myself below. BlueAg09 (Talk) 00:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I disagree. See my rebuttal below. Strikehold (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -The fact that one other teammate has also achieved the notable status of graduate student does not trump this subjects achievements. Does the fact that there are many other Wikipedia administrators who trump the fact that you Bobak have also earned that status? No, and does the fact that there are many more administrators who have contributed to many more articles than you downgrade your importance to the Wikipedia community? Definitely not. Only comparing this subject to other subjects who have achieved more than him is not the way to go about determining whether or not this article should stand. Moreover, downplaying his achievements, is merely attacking this subject and those who have awarded him on a personal level. This is a very petty defense. The awards are what they are, thats all. Additionally, the service team award Gatena had received was given to him over many other players on the 2008 USC Trojans football team that have Wikipedia articles. These players, who's profiles Wikipedia user Bobak has either contributed to or created, could be considered less notable than the subject in dispute; however, Bobak has taken no action against these articles. On the contrary, he has supported and contributed to them. Does the fact that Gatena was awarded this service team award over those players mean that they are beneath him or that they should not be on Wikipedia, absolutely not. Because I believe those articles should be listed on Wikipedia along with Gatena's and because this discussion is not about those articles I will not name the articles. Although, I do believe the intense scrutiny of this article after repeated submissions for deletion by Bobak show his extreme negative bias towards this player.

• • As a side note Bobak, the Most Inspirational Player award is a very important award, I'm not sure if you have any competitive athletic experience on a top amateur level such as the subject in question, but if you did than you would understand the importance of Most Inspirational Player. In fact Ray Lewis a very notable football player has been given this award many times. The Most Inspirational Player plays a key role in team morale and has a direct effect on achieving victories.

• Back to my keep argument, this article is on Wikipedia because this subject is unique and meets Wikipedia's requirements. It is well written, it follows the guidelines of Wikipedia, and it is a neutral article that contains verifiable information in credible third-party sources. In no way does the ruling on article attempt to act as common law for "all Division I-FBS (top level) 'scholarship athletes'"(Bobak) and in no way is it an attempt to legitimize articles for over 10,000 college athletes. Again, comparing this subject to others has no bearing on this subjects notability. This subject is very unique, interesting, and notable and this is why this article is here. User Bobak can continue to compare Gatena to other players with more publicity and more awards and not compare him to the thousands of players with less awards and less publicity but it will not negate the fact that this subject is notable and verifiable. This article should be voted upon based of this subject alone and done so in accordance with Wikipedia's rules and policies. This article is not subject to a voting war or opinionated ruling but deserves a non-biased and impartial look. The culmination of achievements and unique accomplishments of this subject are in fact why this article exists. Whether or not two people vote keep or two thousand people vote keep the bearing of deletion should be based on factual evidence. Wikipedia is a tool for all users to positively contribute information. The creator's and editor's of this article or any other articles whether family, teachers, coaches or friends is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles are not based on a popularity and number of keep votes, they are based on the rules and regulations set forth by the organization of Wikipedia and its members. This article clearly meets those policies.

• • And might I remind you, the subject who's article you are attempting to delete is outstanding member of his community, team, and school and shines a positive light upon all NCAA athletes. This citizen is not a criminal or poor student, as a USC Alum, why would you Bobak have a bias against this subjects article on Wikipedia? Sounds strange to me So for the third time, I vote keep.
    few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]

• question I'm not a fan of college football, but I interpret participating at the highest amateur level as participating significantly in the actual competitive games, not being in the reserve or having few minutes on the field. I believe that for professional football or baseball, or for the Olympics, we count any appearance on the field as sufficient, but i am not convinced we should do so here, especially as playing in college football unless there is some special distinction is apparently considered a borderline case in general. DGG (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Gatena was a member of the "service team". If the service team is anything like scout teams at other colleges, it means he played on a team that provided opposition to the first team in practices. Scout team members would generally only see token playing time at end of games where the result is no longer in question. --Mosmof (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Gatena also started his first full healthy season of college football for the Division 1 UC Davis Football team. Additionally, he has played in games with the USC Trojans Football team. 99Legend (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I question whether Great West could reasonably be considered the "highest amateur level" of football. Considering that there are 120 (?) FBS schools and the huge gulf between the dozen or two schools that realistically compete for the national title and the rest of the field, I would say not. Anyway, as long as we're going with a strict (and selective) reading of WP:ATHLETE, I should point out that it doesn'te xplicitly define Div-1A ball as the highest level. Mosmof (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) I would not consider I FCS/I-AA as the "highest amateur level" of American football because although the teams do play I FBC/I-A teams, they do not compete for the same title, and FBS teams are only allowed to count one game against an FCS team toward bowl eligibility. (2) It is not a "selective" reading of WP:ATH, it is a literal reading of it. I'm sorry that you don't like the comma and the word "usually" that follows it, but that does not make the first clause any less authoritative. Strikehold (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you missed my point (or I wasn't very clear). I'll happily concede that the second WP:ATH could include Div IA college football players. What I'm pointing out is, that WP:ATH does not explicitly define Div-1A as the "highest amateur level" of the sport, so the argument that WP:ATH qualifies all Div 1A football players as notable is subjective. It's not an unreasonable opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. --Mosmof (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize then, I did misunderstand you. Still, I don't see a reasonable argument against Division I FBS being considered the "highest amateur level" of American football. If not, then what? Strikehold (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My quibble with qualifying all players at all FBS schools is twofold. 1) Most FBS schools do not realistically compete for the national title. Sure, they might play against each other, but SMU and Texas couldn't be considered the same "level" except by classification. Try soccer for comparison - most nations in the world compete in the World Cup at the qualifying level, but only 32 make the quadrennial finals. United States, which has played the last four World Cup finals, and Barbados are technically in the same federation and at the same level, but only one is at the highest level of the sport by reasonable standards. Likewise, I could reasonably argue that only BCS conference schools, Notre Dame, and at-large schools that have made BCS Bowls to be at "the highest level". (2) There is no indication that Gatena has played meaningful snaps for USC. In fact, he received a service team (scout team) player award, meaning he was not an important player by any stretch of the imagination. As a third-string center, I'd be surprised if he received anything other than garbage time snaps. Mosmof (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Respectfully, no, that is not a reasonable argument because you are applying a completely arbitrary dichotomy to a sports league with an existing hierarchy. The meaning of "level" is quite clear from the usage. In English rugby, the Guiness Premiership is one "level"; in college football, Division I FBS is one "level"; in Italian association football, Serie A is one "level". In association football, they actually call it "levels" (See:
  American soccer pyramid). By your logic, the 1989 Georgia Tech football team wasn't notable, because they weren't Notre Dame or Nebraska... but they won the national title in 1990 with the same coach and, presumably, most of the same players. And the U.S. has been in the last four World Cup finals??? Are you talking about assoc. football? The U.S. hasn't even advanced to the second round in the last four World Cups... Strikehold (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. Georgia Tech is in the ACC, a BCS conference. I don't see your point. I was throwing out the BCS example as a possible, narrower, interpretation of "highest amateur level", and it would be foolish to think notable schools outside the major conferences wouldn't be considered.
2. I meant World Cup Finals as in the tournament (as opposed to World Cup qualifiers), but I see where you are confused. FWIW, USA reached the second round (Round of 16) in 1994 and the quarterfinal in 2002. My point stands though - USA and Barbados are in the same confederation and essentially the same level. One is a team that competes at a world class level, the other is eligible to compete at a world class level, but doesn't.
3. You are comparing leagues with no more than 20 teams to an entire classification of schools with 120 members, most of which have not the resources, ability, or willingness to compete with the elite teams.
4. Gatena may have played for a team at the highest amateur level, but there's no indication that he did anything other than help run out the clock. Again, I don't see how a scout team could be considered the "highest level". Mosmof (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent for readability) I think the way I am reading WP:ATH is the most clear-cut, objective interpretation. "Compete" means play in a regular season or postseason game; "highest amateur level" means Division I FBS for American football. To say this or that about how he was also a scout team player or only played throw-away time is to begin applying somewhat arbitrary, subjective, and impossible to measure criteria. It is also reading way more into WP:ATH than is actually there.

Utah is a non-BCS team and they were declared 2008 national champions by a few non-consensus selectors (and they easily could have been named AP or other consensus selector champions had OU blown out UF). My point being, every game of the season has a wide-reaching ripple effect, and it is hard for me to justify saying the Texas Tech starting line-up is notable, but the Rice starting line-up is not notable.

What does number of teams in a league have to do with anything? There are hundreds of national leagues in dozens of sports in the world. Sheer vastness does not in itself negate notability. Again, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and probably many times more bytes are wasted on AFDs like this than by the articles they address...

I fully support a reassessment of WP:ATH with the purpose of adding a specific American college sports clause. However, this is not the place to argue the interpretation of WP:ATH. I think the article's subject meets the criteria there, and pending change of WP:ATH, I think it should be retained.

Tottenham Hotspur hasn't been competitive for the Premiership title any time recently, and, hell, the Cincinnati Bengals haven't ever been to a Super Bowl, so... Just trying to prove a point about the fallacy of making arbitrary assumptions based on performance.

(Sidenote: I meant the U.S. did not advance to the second round in each of the last four World Cups, sorry). Strikehold (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've addressed the Utah exceptions (wait, when I wrote "BCS conference schools, Notre Dame, and at-large schools", what I meant here was "at-large BCS invitees" - oops). And while this may come off as self-serving, WP:ATH isn't all that helpful as a black-or-white AFD decider, since there is little agreement on its intent and I believe there is enough critical mass to get some sort of change. I don't like the idea of relying on an essentially lame duck criterion. I'd rather defer to WP:GNG, and the vast majority of college athletes will never receive non-trivial, independent coverage, and that's more true the further we get away from BCS conferences and the occasional outliers. Fair enough point on Spurs and Bengals, but at least almost all those players are subject of in-depth coverage from independent sources. A scout team offensive lineman who gets an occasional snap is not. Mosmof (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And therein lies part of the problem: offensive linemen in particular are the victims of statistical bias, but there is no doubting how essential their contributions are to successful teams. Centers and guards don't record receptions, sacks, TFLs, etc etc etc. Even defensive players lack stats pages on ESPN.com. Three of the "Seven Blocks of Granite" (arguably the most famous offensive line in history) don't even have wikipedia articles. That is part of the reason I favor my interpretation of WP:ATH. I would like to see the withdrawal of this nomination pending a change to WP:ATH for reasons extensively debated here. Strikehold (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• None of that is relevant when the article doesn't even pass the
  WP:SOURCES. Wikipedia should not have articles that are supported by sources that have been questioned throughout this debate, as well as the previous ones. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The fact that he is a USC player is verified by the official USC website ("Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them") and an independent source in the Los Angeles Times. The article needs clean-up to remove other non-reliable sources (and the information cited from them), but it at the least has enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:V. Strikehold (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Which sources, in your opinion, fit the definition of "reliable" and "independent" as defined in
  WP:N? The Los Angeles Times source is actually a blog entry posted by a USC alum who seems to follow the football team very closely, and reports to the LA Times. This source isn't completely independent. Most of the other sources cited in the article are not reliable or independent of the subject. Taking out those sources as well as the information they cite would remove most of the information in the article. How much of the article would still exist if this massive deletion were to happen? Probably not much. Why even bother to have the article in that case? BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Most major newspapers have "blogs" where staff writers covers their area of concentration, including The Washington Post and The New York Times. These aren't really blogs in the traditional sense of the word, as they are written by the newspapers' staff and published officially through it. Even if it would be reduced to a stub, so what? That is a "surmountable problem", as per
  WP:NOEFFORT. Strikehold (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Fails
  WP:N - I've outlined the reasons in Talk:Steve Gatena
  , but to summarize, the Steve Gatena has not been a subject of significant coverage in multiple, third party sources.
  • A brief profile in an LA Times blog post about the USC's walk-on players that season is not significant coverage.
  • A campus paper article about a member of the school's football team is not a source independent of the subject.
  • A local paper article about a member of its own community (essentially a "local boy does good/about to do good") is not a source independent of its subject.
  • A scout.com profile, which is basically a shell page with basic attributes that are made for all high school football players who receive attention from colleges, is not significant coverage.
  • Team awards and a brief mention by a head coach do not constitute notability.
  • A mention in the list of the season's team award winners is neither significant nor third party coverage.
  • If you have to say It is important to note that Gatena's transfer case is very unique without source or attribution for the claim, then it's probably not that important.
  • I find it intellectually dishonest to read the first part of the amateur athlete criterion in
    WP:ATHLETE
    and say, "Yay! All Div 1 NCAA football players are in!" and ignore the second part, where the intent of the criterion is clarified.
  • Even if we did agree that playing at the highest level of college football did fulfill the requirement for WP:ATHLETE, we should note that Gatena won the USC Service Team Offensive Player of the Year, which indicates he was not a first team regular, so the claim that he played at the sport's highest amateur level becomes debatable. --Mosmof (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW - I initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Edward Miller for another Southern Cal football of similar notability. I don't see how Gatena is any more notable than Miller, except for the (unsupported and unattributed) claim that his attending three schools during his football career makes him notable. Mosmof (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Gatena has started for a Division 1 team and has played in almost two dozen Divison one college football games in both the Great West and Pac-10 college football conferences does make him notable. Also other feature stories in sources such as the Daily News and Rivals.com are independent third party sources. How many sources are needed and what is the purpose of a source? All facts in this article are clearly cited by reputable sources. In any academic setting they would serve as sufficient verifiable sources to confirm the facts listed are true. The argument that this article should be deleted, based off of the fact that the sources included in this article which serve to confirm the facts stated, may or may not be significant enough to you is completely bogus. Each source is legitimate. There are other legitimate sources out there not cited in this article and any academic level media search will reveal dozens of legitimate results on this subject.99Legend (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but there are no "featured" stories of Gatena cited in the article. A feature story is a "piece of journalistic writing that covers a selected issue in-depth". NONE of those articles sourced cover Gatena in depth. THESE articles are examples of feature stories: [12], [13], and [14]. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand what a feature story is, again a search of media databases will reveal feature stories written on this subject [15]. After a search, you will find such articles in sources like The Daily News, Los Angeles Times, California Aggie, Rivals.com, etc.. 99Legend (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really? I did a Google searches with steve gatena with site:latimes.com and site:rivals.com, and I came up with passing mentions in the former and profiles/brief recruiting updates in the latter. Could you point me to a feature article on those sites? The Daily News articles I see in the article are of "local boy does really good" variety, and like the California Aggie articles, couldn't reasonably considered independent of the subject. Mosmof (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 99Legend: Again, those are not feature stories. The coverage of Gatena on those articles is trivial - they are probably only 1-3 sentences that mention Gatena. If you really think there are articles that cover Gatena to a great extent (like those Mark Sanchez and Rey Maualuga articles I linked above), please provide them. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not my responsibility to provide you the articles, if you would have read this full article ^[1] which is cited in the Wikipedia article you would find one full 700+ word feature article on the subject. Regardless of who is in the LA Times post ^[2] there is a short bio about Gatena. Another feature ^[3] also mentions Gatena in great depth. Again all sources are verifiable. Rivals.com contains 7 articles on Gatena ^{[4] [5][6][7][8][9][10]} none of which are even used as citation in his article. There are more sources out there however Wikipedia is not a linkdump and it is not necessary to include every article ever printed or published on this individual. 99Legend (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you really want the article to be kept, then you must provide the appropriate sources. It's not my responsibility to go look for them either. You have to present the links to the articles here, as you just did. You can't just say "there are more articles out there" without backing the statement up. Let's go over the articles you provided: the first one you cite is a local newspaper article. The majority of the article is about the 2003 Westlake High offensive line. All of the coverage about Gatena is trivial: that he is the "runt" of the offensive line, how he compares in size to the other o-linemen, a one-sentence quote, and his estimation on the bill in a team visit to a local restaurant. That is hardly
              independent of the subject. The Rivals articles, all dated in 2003, all cover his college recruiting -- his recruiting is trivial at best. Thousands of high school players receive this kind of coverage by recruiting services, and that by itself should not necessarily define the notability of a player. See Matt Barkley and Garrett Gilbert for examples of high school players who have met the notability standards of Wikipedia. IMHO, Gatena can definitely have his own article once the media proves he is a prospective NFL player, as Mark Sanchez, Rey Maualuga, Taylor Mays, Brian Cushing, and Fili Moala, among others, have. Right now, he hasn't yet. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
              ]
• Delete per nom. Ndenison ^talk 21:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:GNG is more clear--"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Not all of the sources are "independent" of the subject as Mosmof clearly pointed out. This article fails WP:GNG and should thus be deleted. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • the requirement is significant coverage in reliable independent sources, not that all sources listed must be independent.99Legend (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but the subject hasn't received any significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources. --Mosmof (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Multiple reliable independent" sources are not required. Strikehold (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are not enough of them (the reliable, independent ones) to establish the subject's notability per

WP:GNG. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• KEEP: Google searches on this athlete show that many different media outlets have written about him. I dont know much about football, but thats notable enough for me —
  few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned
  comment was added at 21:27, February 8, 2009 (UTC)..

• Keep –according to the logic presented by wikipedia user Strikehold I believe this individual article meets the WP:Athlete standards and requirements. In my opinion the sources listed are more than credible and this article goes above and beyond most Wikipedia articles in citing sources. This article is really well done, it is well written, well cited, and non-bias. It includes a lot of positive information on the subject but after searching for other information none could be found. I actually think this article could be a model Wikipedia bio article.
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

• Keep –This attempt to delete this entry seems to me to be a personal vendetta of some sort by another at the subject's university. This is the third time it has been tried, with no more merit than heretofore. —Preceding
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
  • I can assure you that it is not a vendetta of any sort, and please
    assume good faith. --Mosmof (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As do I. Ndenison ^talk 23:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I base my comment on 3 tries by others to delete this entry. Let's at least agree that if it fails to be deleted this time, though this is football and not baseball, three strikes and you're out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sternlight (talk • contribs) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No feet here; I've filled in my user page.Sternlight (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with it? The fact is that there are a suspiciously high number of

talk) 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oh, now I see what you mean. If you really were Dr. Sternlight, I should think you'd be able to do better than cut-and pasting you're free
  talk) 00:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Look at all of his accomplishments, those all together make him notable.--Giants27 TC 00:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? What accomplishments? Playing Division 1-AA football? Being on the USC scout team? Being an all-around upstanding citizen? --Mosmof (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His bio includes these
*2009 Rose Bowl Champion
*2008 PAC 10 Conference Champion
*2008 USC Service Team Offensive Player of the Year
*2008 USC Trojans Scholar Athlete
*2005 Great West Conference Champion
*2003 Wendy's High School Heisman (Nominee)
*National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame High School Scholar Athlete (High school)
*2002 & 2003 Super Prep All-Farwest (High school)
*2003 All-CIF Division IV First Team (High school)
*All-CIF Academic First Team (High school)
*Los Angeles Times All-Ventura/North Coast First Team (High school)
*Los Angeles Daily News All-Area First Team (High school)
*All-Ventura County First Team (High school)
*Ventura County All-Academic Team (High school)
*All-Marmonte League First Team (High school)
*4 time consecutive Westlake High Scholar Athlete Award (High school)99Legend (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm pretty sure he didn't win the Pac 10, Rose Bowl or the Great West all by himself. The other awards are addressed at the top of the page. Mosmof (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Obviously, in no part does this athlete take any team win of any sort as a sole achievement. Teams are comprised of many individuals that work together to achieve greatness. This athlete has been a part of some great and notable teams. Thus contributing to the reasons for which this athlete is notable. 99Legend (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am questioning the validity of this discussion. 3 4 anonymous IPs that haven't done much of anything else (if anything at on) on Wikipedia have !voted to keep the article. These very well could be socks of 99Legend or Sternlight, assuming that those two aren't the same person anyway. Ndenison ^talk 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree there's like a hundred IP comments here which either means this discussion is at the top of google for Steve Gatena (I'm not sure if it is), or there's a lot of socking going on.--Giants27 TC 01:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've asked at
  talk) 02:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If an admin can in fact see where and when posts were made they would see that I only post from the same IP address. If any of my post are not signed by me and are in fact signed by my IP it is only because I may have been signed out when i re-opened my browser. I have gone back through my posts with my IP and signed them with this name. Note, I have not changed any of the content of my posts. Additionally, I cannot be held responsible nor do i take any responsibility for any posts other than my own. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and can be edited by anyone. 99Legend (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

• Delete To contribute to the achievement of a notable team you have to take a significant part in its games. The listing of the awards is an attempt to imply notability to an individual who did not in any normal sense contribute in a major way to it, and is outright POV editing. To praise someone for what that person did not do is also a BLP violation; most people would be rightly be offended at it. DGG (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Steve Gatena definitely qualifies as a notable athlete. While he is on the Service Team, he was voted the most outstanding player, on a team that includes both Aaron Corp and Marc Tyler. These individuals both qualify as Notable athletes, and Gatena was recognized above them. It was said before, but it should be said again: offensive line is not a glamour position that would allow Gatena to pick up stats like these other two players. Yet, he still meets the standards of a notable player. Lastly, I agree with the above sentiments that this looks like a personal vendetta against Gatena. CDUB —Preceding
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• Delete per DGG and nom. let's not let these SPAs sway reality: this person is not notable per wikipedia's standards. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  talk) 14:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per DGG's excellent analysis.
  talk) 15:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This is seriously getting kind of ridiculous and IMHOP we are beating a dead horse here. Can we just get a qualified unbiased administrator to make the decision on this. This page was created as school project in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and was not meant to cause any kind of problems or commotion. This article has been both beneficial to me and my academic/athletic programs andI don't want to bring a negative light to either myself or those around me by causing a stir. I would appreciate if a qualified administrator could review this article in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and make some kind of final decision. I don't need to be subjected to a court of opinion by individuals who do not know me, my character, or my accomplishments. Regardless of the significance my achievements my have to other individuals they are important to me. When I created the article i saw other individuals on my team with articles who are lesser known than me so I decided if I have to make several articles why not create one on myself. I'm sorry for all the hassle I caused and I apologize for wasting your time, although, I do believe this article meets wikipedia's requirements and should stand. Otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time in creating a long well written article on this topic in the first place.
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• cmt People who write articles about
  talk) 16:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • also I should add, as others have pointed out, that the article is well written, especially for an article written mostly by the subject himself and apparently those close to him. The work put into this article should be recognized But, at the end of the day, this doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard for significant, independent coverage. And to reiterate what Bali ultimate wrote above, a deletion isn't meant to be a judgment on character or to belittle one's accomplishment. There are many, many people who are pillars of community and important to those around them, but do not have Wikipedia article, because no matter how admirable they are or how hard they've worked, they're not notable. Conversely, there are despicable lowlives who contribute nothing of value to society with Wikipedia articles because their notoriety received widespread coverage. As the fine print at the bottom of the edit screen says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it", which is another way of saying "Don't take anything on Wikipedia personally". Mosmof (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On the subject of school projects, please see
    WP:SUP. – ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete not notable, per DGG's execellent analysis ukexpat (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probably the most neutral autobiography I've ever seen on Wikipedia, but just below the bar of
  talk) 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. If we were talking about any sport other than the parochial North American sports there wouldn't be any doubt about this. I must comment here on the role of
  Phil Bridger (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. This is the general perception some of WP:CFB are concerned about. Please keep in mind that the nominator (me) and several of those strong advocates for its deletion are active members of WP:CFB who are actually trying to prevent the WP from being used as such an excuse for dubious notability. --Bobak (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for tarring you all with the same brush - I'm pleased to see that not all participants in this project have the mindset that I described.

Phil Bridger (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Phil, and I don't intend to paint you with an equally generalized brush, but as a European (as I presume you are from your comment) I do not think you realize the appeal and influence that college football and, to a lesser extent, men's basketball have in the United States. They are, essentially, on par with professional sports with the only real exception being that the players don't get paid (legally). I would be wiling to wager, that by any metric, American college football surpasses professional ice hockey, soccer, lacrosse, or any number of other sports in revenue, exposure, and fan support. In 2006, ten college football programs had "at least $45 million in revenue" (according to Forbes magazine). So, why is it that a player who has one snap in the NFL or one cap in international football is automatically notable, while an American college football player is subject to much more stringent criteria?

Just the same, if there is a consensus that these players do not meet notability standards, then there first needs to be a change at

WP:ATH to exclude them based on whatever criterion deemed necessary, and not efforts to do so in an arbitrary manner based on individual preference and perception. Strikehold (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know about association football, but players make it to the NFL because they have the "best of the best" skills. It takes a lot to make an NFL team — players who get selected are generally those who receive all-

2008 NFL Draftees). A large amount of players don't even make the league. It is much easier to make a college football team (especially as a walk-on) than an NFL team. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Although BlueAg is correct on some points, they are irrelevant to the debate. Skill or quality of play (both subjective, anyway) aren't relevant to a debate on notability, whereas things like fanbase size, followership, "brand" recognition, and marketing potential are relevant as objective indicators. As an aside: Of course it is easier to make a college team: there are 120 FBS teams, plus ~120 FCS and ~150 Division II schools (some consider FCS and Div II quality to be about equivalent to FBS, just with smaller lineman). So that means the 32 NFL teams have a pool of almost 400 schools to select the best players. Strikehold (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant points? I answered your question regarding why NFL players are automatically notable, whereas college players are not. I don't think it matters as to how glorified or well-followed the NFL or college football are - the only thing that should count is the player's national perception, and it doesn't matter whether it is positive or negative, it has to be significant. This significance can be measured by the amount of reliable/independent media attention they get. In this case, Gatena has not received enough (yet), and thus, the article fails

WP:GNG. There are simply not enough appropriate sources to establish his notability, as I stated previously. BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

In looking back, I actually don't think any of this comment thread is really all that relevant to the article at hand, because it doesn't address it specifically (including Phil's original comment, most of which is merely directed at WP:CFB). It was actually more an explanation of college football's notability in general which isn't necessarily pertinent, so I apologize for the digression. I felt a defense necessary in the face of Mr. Bridger's opinion. As for WP:GNG, I've already addressed your views with my own. I think Gatena's met the criteria with the LA Times and USC sources (although barely), and that is enough to buttress notability in conjunction with the additional criteria of WP:ATH. Strikehold (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BlueAg, to put it another way, I don't think skill level or quality of play is a justifiable indicator of notability (nor is it objective). In association football, is the Danish Superliga (a UEFA coefficient of 20.450) less notable than the English Premiership (75.749) or German Bundesliga (48.722)? Does that make these guys (Jesper Olesen, Michael Stryger, Jesper Kristoffersen) non-notable since they haven't had caps outside the Superliga? Strikehold (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your point about the LA Times/USC sources: one, the USC source (the player roster/bios) is not independent of the subject. Second, his brief bio available on the LA Times source appears verbatim on two other sources I just found: [17] and [18]. All three of these articles were compiled by different authors, and the authors all indicate they retrieved the bios from USC Sports Information. Thus, his biographical information was not even written by a third-party source. That leaves ZERO sources that are completely reliable and independent. The article undoubtedly fails WP:GNG. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misunderstanding of the term "independent of the subject": "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Gatena himself has no influence over what the USC athletic dept. publishes, so it is independent of him. Strikehold (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the affiliation: he is one of their players. Footnote #5 in WP:GNG states: "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large". The bio is very brief too, and I doubt it qualifies as "Significant coverage". His USC profile does not even include the detailed information that most of the other players have (see [19], [[20], and [21]) . BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bio doesn't contain information because I transferred in one week before the season started (a mere technicality). I came so late that they did not have time to prepare one for me. When the bio's are updated for spring football or for next season you can expect to see a long and lengthy bio.Gosugatena (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider that college football teams, even at the highest level, are often not that discriminate. In fact, Washington Huskies football has a no-cut policy - as long as you're enrolled at the university and willing to take the physical punishment, you are a member of the team. Plus, recruiting of high school players is a very inexact science; players with four or five-star rating often end up doing very little at the college level. So you can see how mere membership on the team or appearances give no indication about a player's actual abilities. --Mosmof (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one, as far as I am aware, has argued in favor of simple membership on a team. I have voiced support for game action, as that is how WP:ATH is written. And, I'm willing to bet, being on the Washington team doesn't guarantee you are going to take a snap in a real game; you could easily spend your college career on a scout team or practice squad. Strikehold (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did he really compare USC Trojans football to Washington Huskies football... my life has sunk to a new low. Bobak, you've gotta back me up on this one. LoLGosugatena (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see enough legitimate newspapers mentioning him, so he is notable. Dream Focus (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Bobak's thorough nomination and DGG's analysis. FWIW, User:Gosugatena has asked for a qualified, unbiased administrator to make a decision on this article. I see four admins who have participated in this discussion: Bobak (the initiator), DGG, Stifle, and me. All four of us have agreed that this subject does not meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia, and I don't see any indication that any of us are biased; even discounting Bobak (as the initiator), there are three admins advocating deletion. Horologium (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete echoing the arguments above. Eusebeus (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• HEY Could we start adding new comments at the bottom please. You guys have made it really difficult to tell who said what when by adding new comments above or in the middle of old ones. Alternately, you could
  talk) 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Wow, what a facinating discussion to stumble upon. I agree that the subject of this article does not meet notablility standards. But if he does, I'ma have to start writing articles about every scout team practice fodder player for the Gators. as the national champions deserve it. (Just a joke, btw....) Zeng8r (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - membership in a college football team is not sufficient to meet
  All-American? No. Did he win an individual award given by the Pacific 10 Conference or the NCAA? No. There is nothing - yet- that separates him from the thousands of college football players from Davidson to Texas, from Mount Union to William and Mary to Utah. So deletion is the only option here. B.Wind (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States congressional lists

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

• Keep Fills an apparent need, and the claim of "self-referencing" des not appear to be key to me. Many articles primarily refer to material on WP, what would be improper is using the list as a RS for some sort of claim, but no such claims appear to be made. Collect (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I made this list and it's been rarely improved. Yes, it's self-referential in violation of WP policy and that's why I agree to delete it. However, it does fill a need and I wish there was a better way to implement it. If it's deleted, can someone suggest a better use?—Markles 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is one of the reasons why categories exist. Tavix (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I couldn't find anything about lists on
  WP:MOS. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• First of all, I would like to advise you to assume good faith. Just because you couldn't find the MOS violation, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Secondly, read
  Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. You should find it there. Tavix (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No, it's not there. Perhaps this would be a good place to start: Wikipedia:Lists. Here's a quote from the top of the page: "Lists and categories are synergistic." --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your confused. Think of it this way: This list exists solely because there are other Wikipedia lists that are about the United States congress. It doesn't discuss/list anything else expect those Wikipedia links. That is a self-reference. You can also maybe think about it as original research because the only research available/possible for this list is the fact that there are other lists on Wikipedia. If it wasn't for those lists, the list in question would have no content, and therefore wouldn't exist. Tavix (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then why should it be discussed for deletion? --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the entire article is a self-reference to Wikipedia, if we remove the self-reference, we will have nothing left (besides maybe a template). So deleting the article seems to be the only other option. Tavix (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The pertinent self-reference guidelines seem to guide editors to avoid being too philosophical and self-limited, or cutesy and inner-directed, when editing the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is not intellectually dorky, in other words; nor is it an area for intellectual cliques and in-jokes. It's just the general trend and purpose of the self-reference guidelines that I am trying to talk about here. It doesn't have much to do with a list like this, of which there are of course very many in the Wikipedia. ...And if there could be produced and copied a relevant guideline for the purposes of this discussion, it would be appreciated. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What does being a self-reference have anything do with Wikipedia "being too philosophical"? This is getting too off topic from the issue at hand. 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is. Nomination has no rationale as per

WP:MOS, list isn't really deletable per WP:LIST, there isn't much to discuss here. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Taken from
  WP:SAL, first paragraph: Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view." Stop trying to pass off lists as something that doesn't have to pass guidelines and can still be included. Tavix (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ok. One thing about categories is that they cannot be presented in tabular format; see List of African stock exchanges. Information such as date of founding, number of listed companies, city of location, and an external link are included in this table, which originated as a list. List of government ministries of Cambodia will be another example, including the government link, date of founding, the Senior Minister, important agencies devolved from the Ministry, etc. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to a category - This ought to be converted into a category so it will update itself and be more easily findable. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This list should definitely not be converted to a category. From WP:Lists#Purposes of lists "Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic, and is covered in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates." The tone of the WP guidelines in regard to lists and categories is overwhelmingly positive in regard to both. Why should one be thinking to choose between the two? --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, this is obviously, clearly, plainly, a useful list per
  WP:MOS, unless they have controversial content. A category would be worse than useless here. I'm not sure what the nominator means. Can you please explain more clearly? The burden is on you. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. I see how, arguably, since this list has no references, it thus violates the Manual of Style guidelines. I do not see that as a big problem, but I tagged it for rescue anyway. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This list was made for the sole purpose of listing other Wikipedia articles. This is a self-reference because the only thing that can reference it is Wikipedia articles, which is evident from the list. If you want to get really complex, it also cannot be verified by reliable secondary sources, as the only thing it lists are other Wikipedia articles. Tavix (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep usefull list, purely organizational and helpful LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 05:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but suggest that people who would work on this try to bring similar lists relating to other countries to the same standard, per
  talk) 10:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - perfectly useful list. It does a job not dome by a category of flagging up those lists that need to be created.
  talk) 00:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. A "list of lists" such as this one is a "neutral self-reference" which is specifically allowed by guidelines, see
  WP:SELF#Neutral self-references are acceptable. DHowell (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Excellent citation. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Taylor

Mark J. Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable professor. ERK ^{talk • contribs} 16:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The problem is not possible notability, the problem is lack of independent sources and lack of depth. Neither Get Cited nor University of Sheffield are independent. Get Cited is essential worthless because of little information, and it is member-controlled. One colleague tells me that all law professors and bishops are inherently notable, but I believe that they still need to meet the basics: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. --Bejnar (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. All professors have to publish ("or perish" as they like to say), so the publication list isn't of note. --Bobak (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability in the profession depends on how much they publish, and how much it gets cited. It's the ones who publish a noteworthy amount who get promoted and, very often, become notable. In this case, there is not really a very large amount of truly peer-reviewed publication, but I have not yet checked for citations. And, we always regard the official university web site as sufficient for establishing routine facts; the requirement for third party material is met by the publications & the peer-review. DGG (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of New Genetics and Society these do not appear to be peer-reviewed publications, and despite DGG's suggestion it isn't about publication, its about standing in the field which generally merits not just citation, but comment, e.g. "John X's organization of foo has provided the basis for ..." or "The court relied in its decision on the arguments presented in ...". --Bejnar (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When I originally created this article, my first one I think, I was under the impression that anybody could be included in Wikipedia. Dr Taylor is has been quoted in a number of articles that I have read but these have been articles written by present or former colleagues at Sheffield. So, delete, unfortunately. (Quentin X (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under
  WP:BIO either. Maybe in the future, but not yet.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MisterMN

MisterMN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist. The only reference in the entire article is the subject's personal website. Despite the article's claim that its subject is "internationally known", a Google search for "MisterMN" only turns up about 280 results, none of which seem to be from

• Delete, nn. I assume it survived a prod, otherwise it could've been speedied. --Bobak (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as having no significant coverage in the press, or other reliable sources, and therefore failing
  WP:N. – Toon^(talk) 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Absolutely nothing to suggest notability and no reliable sources. ERK ^{talk • contribs} 00:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Sufficient sources for valid settlement. A merge to List of Austin neighborhoods can be discussed on the relevant talk pages. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dove Springs, Austin, Texas

Dove Springs, Austin, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subdivision in Austin

• I know of
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so I'm just going to mention this. By this logic, this should be either deleted with the article, as there are thousands or more articles like it (who wants to go through them?) or kept. I'm not advocating either one, but I'm just saying that dozens of other such articles exist. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I don't agree with the assessment of the nominator that the place is non-notable. We don't have enough information in the article to make a reliable assessment about that. The other neighboorhoods in the category Nuclear mentions have actual content (the ones I checked). I vote to delete because this article has no significant content that cannot be gleaned from a map (which is also a common reason used to delete road articles) - Mgm|^(talk) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep
  Townlake (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep Although being used in real estate ads has normally not been sufficient--such ads use almost any possible neighborhood term available--the wording on the City page linked to just above "to provide citizens of the Dove Springs community... " might be sufficient. DGG (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The neighborhood itself does not appear to be notable [22] even within Austin, Texas, much less outside of it. As noted, neighborhoods and subdivisions are not inherently notable, nor are individual parks or large high-rise apartment buildings. Almost anything can be an identifying marker; more often, it's a street name. While there is no bar to referring to them in the context of other articles, individual neighborhoods do not entitled to their own separate page on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - per above. Hogvillian (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete USGS doesn't list the existence of this neighborhood, although it does appear to have a Methodist church here, which seems to have been found by the USGS in the yellow pages under "churches". Not enough. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The neighborhood tends to get more negative mentions than positive ones, as this page demonstrates. I've got some healthy skepticism toward this page because it doesn't cite a source for many of the stats, but Dove Springs certainly seems to have some distinctive characteristics.
    Townlake (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep place appears to be notable enough, a search of Google Books and Google News finds some results that could be useful for expanding the article. If there is not much that can be written about it, this and other stubs in the category could be merged into List of Austin neighborhoods, to make the list useful as it currently has no more information than the category. —Snigbrook 23:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars#Minigames. MBisanz ^talk 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mini-games in Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars

List of mini-games in Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as a non-notable and unencyclopaedic article. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact the game isn't released yet has no bearing on the notability of the minigames. The game itself is widely discussed and is worth an article. A logical follow-up conclusion would be that the minigames list is a valid use of Wikipedia:Summary style. Not all entries are pure game guide writing and the ones that are can be fixed through editing rather than deletion. Any sort of rewrite that consisely discusses the minigames could save this. (If the outcome is delete despite my comment, I'd like to urge the deleting admin, to leave a note (or "userfy") to the WikiProject for video games which is highly active and is likely interested in making the neccesary edits. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appropriate article to help clarify this material. separate articles on such things have been occasionally tried, and this way is much better. Combination articles are usually the way to go for fiction elements. DGG (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as they are completely non-notable and non-encyclopedic, it's written like a game guide and they could be explained within a couple of sentences in a gameplay section of the main article. --
  :. 17:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom and Alex. Ddawkins73 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've transwikied this page over to StrategyWiki:Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars/Minigames. -- Prod (Talk) 19:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to
  WP:VGSCOPE with good reason, it's an inexperienced editor acting in good faith and writing the easier way - breaking something down into component parts. There is nothing here which cannot be covered in the Chinatown Wars gameplay sections, that's what it's for, all this does is generate excess baggage in the form of section headings and do away with the notion of giving this part of gameplay appropriate weight within the game's article. Merge it in its entirity and let someone remove the baggage, end of problem. Spinning out articles is fine if it is shown that they're supported by sources and can stand on their own two feet, but in this case it's an unfinished article and the minigames don't need spinning out any more than the reception or development sections. Someoneanother 19:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge all
  verifiable content to Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars#Minigames. I don't see why at this time it cannot be included in that section. MuZemike 20:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Listcruft at its worst. I'm Jack⁽Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems useful. Hogvillian (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful. Game guide content. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not only is it guide content, but it's guide content for a secondary feature of the game. We don't have a list of mini-games for any one of the entries in the
  most popular party video game series ever created, but we need this? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge significant content details (sample minigames, etc.) to GTA:CW, but Delete the list (unlikely search term). List of minigames in a game is not appropriate as it is gameguide content, even if it is sourced by a reliable third-party. Should (after release) one or more of the minigames gain additional reputation, they can be described more in the GTA:CW article. --MASEM 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only merge if we can get more citations for it.
  talk) 19:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Summarize and merge: See
  WP:NOTDIR. We don't mention every detail of a game. But a summary of some of the key minigames would be appropriate in the main article. Randomran (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Excellent list article. An editor of this list article really should read
  WP:NOT#DIR, list passes with flying colors. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No, it clearly violates that section by being a list of non-
    notable minigames. You're not being sarcastic, are you? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWE title history since Draft (2008)

WWE title history since Draft (2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources at all. Basic

The AFD tag is on the article now. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'm missing the point, but lists of title holders in WWE can grow to the point of being unmaintainable because there are so many title fights. Wouldn't it be better to find a source and link it in the main article instead of trying to merge it and bloat the article? (Side note: I don't see why we should use the 2008 draft as an arbitrary cut-off. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing special about last years draft (WWE holds one every year) and no particular reason to have the title history since it. All the titles have their own history pages (which include mentions of when they change brands) and the WWE page already has the current champions and who they defeated to win it. TJ Spyke 20:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I say Keep because most championships changed brand with the draft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedRooster96 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is just redundant. Each title has its own history article, which contains all this information. Nothing was special about this draft, there have been drafts since the brand extension, and this does not warrant its own article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Nici & TJ. HAZardousMATT^toxic 20:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So as to not be the odd one out. RR96 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Echo remarks by TJ and Nici. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant and because the 2008 draft was nothing special to warrant an article such as this one. Nikki♥311 23:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - irrelevant and non-notable history since 2008, notable history is in the WWE main article already.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wounds of Tskhinvali

Wounds of Tskhinvali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apart from being completely unsourced, the article is about a non-notable movie with no known importance in the propaganda war accompanying the

• Weak Delete - notability of the film seams to be below our standards Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:Notability, lack of coverage in reliable sources. Only sources I could turn up were questionably reliable advocacy sites, and appeared to be mostly trivial mentions linking to YouTube. Potentially interesting, potentially true, but not notable, and Wikipedia is not an advertisement venue for making it notable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It is more home video as evrybody can make at home. It not appears in IMDB. The movie is Propaganda movie and the article is from political reasons not encyclopedic reasons. Geagea (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAM Limit

View AfD

)

A non-notable thech-thing; ram problems with 32-bit systems are commonly documented and not worth an independent article. Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think a useful article on memory limitations of operating systems could be written, but this isn't it. This isn't even part of it. This is a Windows-centric user guide, and it isn't even accurate. JulesH (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inaccuracy is a cleanup issue. If you know better than what the article states, and have the sources to back your content up, then edit the article. Sitting on the sidelines in an AFD discussion and opining delete just because another editor has written poorly does not achieve the goal of writing the encyclopaedia. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although the information here is accurate (if somewhat confusing) this title is not widely used to describe it. Perhaps some of this could be salvaged and put in the
  Windows articles. Pburka (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Why? These limits are neither NTLDR-specific nor even Windows-specific. Several of them are fundamental aspects of the relevant processor architecture. And title problems are not deletion issues. You have, as an editor with an account, a rename button. Use it! Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are, in fact, Windows specific, at least as described in this article. The IA32 architecture is not responsible for these limitations -- it's a historic design issue of Windows. NTLDR is responsible for configuring the address space at boot time, so it seemed like a reasonable place for some of the content. My concern about the title is that I'm not sure that this is a stand-alone topic at all. It seems like collection of minor details of the Windows operating system. Pburka (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two limits that the article could discuss. The title suggests that it's going to be about why 32-bit systems cannot use a full 4GB RAM, a problem which is entirely due to the architecture and which no OS can bypass (without using Physical Address Extension, which uses 36-bit addressing) because 2³² bits = 4GB and devices other than the RAM must be mapped to this same memory space. However, it's mostly talking about the Windows-specific limit on process virtual memory in 32-bit systems (not the same as RAM). Each process can have a maximum of 3GB of virtual memory in 32-bit Windows, if the process is large address space aware (otherwise 2GB), but this is per-process not per system. I think the author must have confused these two issues. If we want an article talking about the virtual memory limit, the article really should be renamed. -- Mithent (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please point to the part of
  Do not bite the newcomers!

  And try to remember that you're here to write. You're not here to template other people into submission with repeated deletion nominations. If you see an incomplete article on a "commonly documented" subject, pull out some of that documentation, and improve the article! It's what you're supposed to be doing. Read the Wikipedia:Editing policy. Also read Wikipedia:Stub and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You can see inside the heads of new users now? I assume that is one of the many mystical powers they give to experienced users. The 'blanking of the page' was not (I think, you obviously seem to know better) in response to the deletion templates. The article RAM Limit has exactly the same content as Windows RAM Limit; either he is creating multiple copies of the same page or (more likely) it was an attempted move, either to change the title or to avoid the deletion tag. The speedy deletion was perfectly valid; he had blanked it for the aforementioned move/copy. Ironholds (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rewrite and rename to Computer address space limits. There have been several notable limits on address space in the history of computing, like the 64kB limit, 640kB limit, 1MB limit, 16MB limit, 4GB limit. Some are imposed by architecture - CPU or otherwise, some by BIOS, some by OS. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rewrite Maybe a good future article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of top Telugu-language films

List of top Telugu-language films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since the phrase "critically acclaimed" is so incredibly vague and often used as a means of promotion, I believe this article fails the

• Commment Looks like it's trying to mirror these articles. Lugnuts (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This strikes me as a legitimate topic, and the author has a record of contributions to Bollywood topics, so I think that this will develop into a good article. I would point out to the previous posts that a list of Telugu-language films is most certainly not a mirror of a list of Tamil-language films. Telugu and Tamil, like English and German, are separate languages even though there are some commonalities. Neither do I believe that the fact that we have a list of Telugu films in 2008 means that a person cannot make a list of award-winning or highest-grossing films in the Telugu language; certainly, we wouldn't apply that rationale to our lists of Hollywood films. Finally, let's be clear that "Bollywood" is the term for films made in India, but there is no such language as "Indian", and the movies are made in a variety of languages for a variety of people. Though most people haven't heard of it, the Telugu language is understood by 75,000,000 people. Mandsford (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to address the other part of the nomination, which is whether the author's use of the phrase "critically acclaimed" is a violation of NPOV. If it is, it is a semantics problem easily fixed by editing. My preference would be "award winning" or "nominated for award", which reflects critical acclaim without interjecting one's personal opinion. Generally, there are two different measures of success for a movie-- it is popular with the general public, which is measured monetarily; or it is popular with the critics, which is measured by an award process. Ultimately, I think that what is sauce for the Hollywood goose is sauce for the Bollywood gander. Mandsford (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis of Mandford's argument. I don't usually like to just say "per", but there's nothing more that needs to be said. DGG (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this were a "list of highest grossing Telugu films" or even a "list of award-winning Telegu films" then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it's not. What, pray tell, is supposed to be the definition of a "top film"? Even if it were given an appropriate rename, this is just a short, unreferenced list of "critically acclaimed" films, where just about any film could claim to be critically acclaimed by someone or other. No objections to a proper list with defining inclusion criteria, but this is not it. PC78 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PC78. While a similar list with defined inclusion criteria could exist, this one does not follow the applicable guidlines. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Should be very easy to find Telugu-language scholarship to support this list. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - amorphous, unencyclopedic, unverifiable, and POV. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no criteria to define "top": quality? gross? googlehits? mentions in the press? critical acclaim? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Jun Rin

Choi Jun Rin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and possible hoax. Apparently a former back up singer, she has yet to release anything as a solo artist and I am unable to verify the acting credit. In fact none of the seven references support anything in the article. A google search for Choi Jun Rin brings up just two hits outside Wikipedia, neither of them relevant. PC78 (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. I couldn't find her on IMDB, either. Ray (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Look closely at the creator's name: "Who-am-I-do-you-know-me". And that this is there only article -which they curiously blanked at one stage. --Merbabu (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Merbabu's comments above

Suro 08:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete' bit of ajoke, isn't it.Kipof (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I first looked for sources myself, to reduce the article to a well-sourced stub, but like the nominator I could find nothing at all under either the name given in the article title or in the purported "real" name given in the article body. (There's another person with a highly similar name, in a different profession, but that's simply ancillary grounds for getting rid of this pronto, lest that other person find people erroneously branding him as a porn star based upon a bad Wikipedia article.)

Speedy deletion does not preclude a new article being created, but per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons it must have supporting sources for any content such as this. I encourage JulesH to learn from Wikipedia history, in addition to putting xyrself in the subject's shoes. Mandsford already addresses the "What if it's not true?" situation, encouraging the doubters to step into the subject's shoes. This content, if this person is not what the article states, is a canonical example of what the BLP policy was created in order to prevent.

But even on the presumption that this is a porn star, history and experience teaches us that we don't do this. We've had several articles that "outed" porn stars in this very way that have caused problems. Jordan Capri was most distressed at being outed by Wikipedia, and came to complain in person at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Capri (noticeboard incident report). Other problematic "outings" that we've had to deal with include Tiffany Teen (AfD discussion), Tawnee Stone (noticeboard incident report), and Brandy Alexandre (who also came to complain in person). See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns#Porn actors' birth names.

Leaving the discussion of sourced real names and personal information aside, it is wholly unacceptable to write unsourced content of this nature in Wikipedia. A proper, reliably sourced, article is not excluded, but this article is not that, and there's no reason to retain this information in an edit history pending sourcing, and every reason not to, given the problems that we've had in the past. Once again: speedy deletion does not preclude the proper creation of a biography that adheres to our policies. But this is not it, nor the foundation for it. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Blaze

Dallas Blaze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - it's either a hoax, an attack, or wishful thinking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see nothing speediable here. It's an article about a person with a claim to notability. It appears that that claim is untrue, but being inaccurate is not in
  WP:CSD. I don't really understand how this could be considered an "attack" page, as it says nothing negative about anybody. JulesH (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete Think about it for a moment. If someone were to use your name in an article, and, with no proof whatsoever, to describe you as an actor in pornographic films, wouldn't you consider that to be negative? The author of this article has made no other contributions, yet he or she has made apparently false statements about another person, giving his "real name", the names of his parents and siblings, his date and place of birth, etc. This is the type of practical joke that would lead to a lawsuit. Mandsford (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]